Many people seem to be going off the idea of work. In the UK there are more than nine million people who are "economically inactive". Some are unemployed, some are students, others are not actively looking for a job or available to start work. There’s no shortage of jobs, but people are choosing not to take them. Many people decided not to return to work after the Covid lockdowns. They reduced their working hours or took early retirement, choosing the golf course over the office. For some, it’s a moral failure that so many are economically inactive. But why do we ascribe such virtue to the idea of work? Politicians endlessly refer to "hard working families", perhaps inducing a sense of entitlement among workers, but in the process stoking resentment against those who don't work. Of course the economy relies on work - the wheels only turn when enough people are employed and paying tax. Some believe the benefits system is to blame - if it's too comfortable not to work - then why bother? But there’s also the broader societal shift where people choose to work less, or not at all and live a more modest but perhaps less stressful life. Is this a laudable position, where people prioritise wellbeing over wealth and status, or a selfish one that denies the collective responsibility we all bear to contribute to society, through labour and taxes? The personal value of work might feel clearer if your job is rewarding and well paid, but less so if you’re on a low income. What is the moral value of work? Presenter: Michael Buerk Producer: Jonathan Hallewell Assistant Producer: Ruth Purser Editor: Tim Pemberton

Debates on immigration's moral implications, economic benefits, and social cohesion. Discussion on the impact of immigrants on public services, housing, and low-wage industries. Exploring diverse perspectives on immigration ethics, asylum cases, and the recruitment of healthcare professionals from low-income countries. Balancing integration, British culture, and the complexities of immigration policies amidst demographic changes.

Exploring the evolving perceptions of marriage in contemporary times, including the impact of declining marriage rates. The discussion challenges traditional notions of lifelong partnerships and delves into the complexities of polyamorous relationships. It also touches on the commercialization of romance, societal pressures, and the benefits of marriage for children and society.

The podcast explores the moral case for veganism and the impact of meat production on climate change. It discusses the rise of meat alternatives, the increase in vegan and vegetarian populations, and the ethical considerations of consuming animals. The conversation delves into the evolving debate on meat consumption, the treatment of animals in different farming scenarios, and the broader implications of plant-based diets for sustainability and future generations.

The podcast discusses contrasting cases of killers' punishments, from a mentally ill man sent to a hospital for life to an execution using nitrogen gas. It raises questions on the purpose of punishment: Is it for criminals, victims, or society? Should victims have a greater role in the judicial process? The chapters explore ethics of punishment, the role of victims in sentencing, and challenges of reentry after prison.

It’s now nearly two years since Russia began its full scale invasion of Ukraine. Hopes that Ukraine might seize back its territory have been dashed, in a conflict that’s become deadlocked. At first it felt clear – the invasion is wrong, Putin must fail and be seen to fail, Ukraine’s defiance and bravery must be supported with everything its allies can provide. But as the death, destruction and bloodshed continues, with little sign of progress on either side, questions have been raised about how the war might ever be brought to an end. How realistic is it for Ukraine to aspire to recapture all of its land, even Crimea? This year’s US presidential election has sharpened the focus: A Trump victory could threaten Ukraine’s future supply of arms. Some believe Russia would settle for the land it has already captured. If so, for Ukraine the bitter pill of ceding some 20% of its territory would at least bring the war to an end. But what’s the moral case for this? What’s the real value of peace – bought at the cost of justice? If western powers are seen to allow aggression to win the day in Ukraine, what message would that send to Vladimir Putin and other tyrants around the world? In Ukraine, what’s the moral case for ceding land for peace?Presenter: Michael Buerk Producer: Jonathan Hallewell Assistant Producer: Linda Walker Editor: Tim Pemberton

Exploring the moral dilemmas of assisted dying, the podcast delves into the profound questions of living and dying well. It raises concerns about suffering, dignity, and autonomy in end-of-life decisions. The panel debates whether compassion trumps the risks of pressured decision-making. Should we allow assisted dying when life becomes unbearable?

This podcast explores the moral implications of attaching identity labels to ourselves and others, discussing topics such as multiculturalism, racial tensions, racial diversity in the cabinet, and the concept of a 'community of communities' in Britain. The speakers delve into the impact of labels on society and the tension between prioritizing identity and a society where identity doesn't matter. They also explore the philosophical liberal tradition, integration, and the balance between diversity and sameness in a diverse society.

Debating the role of public opinion in politics, the podcast discusses whether politicians should respect, accommodate, or ignore public sentiment. It explores the inconsistency and volatility of public opinion, the impact of technology in gauging public mood, and the moral dimensions of democracy. The speakers also touch on the cancellation of projects, the role of education in shaping public opinion, and the contempt shown by Dominic Cummings towards elected politicians. Additionally, they discuss the importance of town hall meetings and deliberative processes in political decision-making.

The Met police has warned of a "growing" risk of violence and disorder this Remembrance weekend. The Prime Minister has described a planned pro-Palestinian protest in London on Armistice Day as “provocative and disrespectful” to those who wish to remember the war dead “in peace and dignity”. The Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis said it was "a stain on our common humanity" that so many seem to have "lost sight of the moral distance between Hamas and Israel". Others, however, strongly refute the description of the demonstrations as “hate marches”, believing that the protesters should be allowed to campaign for a ceasefire and an end to the killing; and to show solidarity with Palestinians without undermining either the remembrance events or the humanity of Israelis. The polarising nature of the Israel-Hamas war and its repercussions in the UK has resulted in both sides accusing the other of ‘weaponising’ remembrance. Public attitudes to commemoration have changed over the last century and notions of a country honouring the ultimate sacrifice of its soldiers can be hard to disentangle politically from conflicts of the day. What are we really doing on Remembrance Day? While for some it is a deep expression of sorrow for the dead and a formal commitment to peace, others believe it risks celebrating past acts of killing, which translates into justifying present militarism and violence. If rising conflicts around the world suggest humanity has not learned from the mistakes of the past – what is the moral purpose of remembrance? How should we remember the dead as well as those who are living through conflict today?Producer: Dan Tierney.